Managers who act like therapists victimize their whole team

Good managers respond to their employees’ personal problems and the distractions of their major, joyous events, like weddings and births.  But what happens when a manager tries to be the therapist for a few underperforming and troubled employees, but fails to fix them? The managers, who go overboard and become therapists, focus their attention on a few employees who are having major internal problems.  These employees usually:

• Can’t stand the stress of meeting deadlines or reasonable performance standards.
• Are so involved in their personal problems that they can’t be counted on – or they can be counted on to drop the ball.
• Blow up and attack their co-workers – overtly or by backbiting, rumor mongering or constant negativity.
• Feel entitled to special treatment because they’re suffering

These managers think they’re sensitive and caring; not bullying, slave-driving bosses.  But actually, they’re caring only about a few of the staff, while they make the rest pick up the slack and put up with being used and abused.  Essentially, these managers are playing favorites: They managers care for a few employees while they victimize and bully the majority of their staff.  They sacrifice the many for the sake of the few.

Inevitably, turnover of solid performers increases.  I’ve seen 25 % turnover per year in these situations.  Inevitably also, these become hostile workplaces as frustration and anger increase.  New employees bail as soon as they can.  Performance also suffers as morale and teamwork plummet.

If these managers listened to evaluations by the majority of their staff, they’d get an earful.

These managers aren’t rescuers; they’re meddlers.  Most are difficult to turn around because they’re addicted to their role as meddlers.  But if they’re willing to look honestly at the mess they create, coaching and consulting can reverse the problems.  They can eliminate the high cost of their addictive meddling and the low attitudes of a few people on their staff.

I see therapist managers imost often n government offices, non-profits and public service organizations.

I see therapist managers most often in government offices, non-profits and public service organizations.

Have you seen any managers like these?

How to correct your children and say "No" to them

Recently, I’ve seen articles and heard parents saying that since words can hurt, we shouldn’t deny our children what they want or ever say, "No" to them.  They think that if we deny them or say "No", we’ll damage their confidence and self esteem.  But if we give them continual praise and approval, we’ll help them develop high self-esteem and a willingness to take risks.  Some studies are even quoted about the harmful effects of the words parents use. I disagree with that advice and parenting style.

Of course words matter; and even more important is how they’re delivered – frequency, voice tone, body language and with beating or caressing.

Of course, unrelenting yelling, insults, criticism, humiliation, shame, guilt, dismissing, ridicule and rejection are harmful.  Personal insults hurt little children.  Hostility and personal attacks tell children that they are bad people for wanting what they want or for doing something wrong or for not doing something right.  It’s easy for children to think their identity is damaged, defective or blemished in ways that cannot be rectified.

A few days ago, I saw a chilling video made at a car wash.  A mother was holding the arm of an approximately 3-4-year-old child while torturing her with the power washing hose.  The child was screaming in pain and writhing to break free.  The mother was screaming that the child had better respect her.  Of course, we don’t need research to tell us that’s lousy parenting and abuse.

Such unrelenting viciousness isn’t confined to parents; it’s also dished out at work.  It’s as if some people really believe the motto attributed to Captain Bligh of the “Bounty:” The beatings will continue until morale improves.”

Don’t live a life fueled by such anger and viciousness.  Weigh your life heavily toward approval, encouragement and praise.  After all, children naturally want to learn, explore and imitate their loving parents.  Maintain control of yourself during moments when your frustration might break out into emotional abuse and intimidation, or verbal and physical violence.

Create a background of loving physical and verbal caresses for all your interactions with your children.  Against that background, it’s critically important that you correct, deny and say "No" sometimes.  Don’t give children everything they want.  Set age-appropriate limits on their behavior.  Teach them how to get along socially.

Most important: Teach them that they can be denied and be told "No", and the world doesn’t end.  Their lives go on just fine without getting everything.  Maybe they’ll get what they want another day.  Or maybe, they’ll have to grow up and earn the money to get what they want for themselves.  Or maybe, as they grow older, they’ll become more aware of the consequences of what they want and they’ll learn to not want it.  That’s called self-discipline, character and integrity.

If you never say "No", you end up with spoiled, selfish children like Veruka Salt from “Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.”

Teach them to be resilient so a "No" doesn’t crush their spirits.  Then, denial doesn’t stop them from ever wanting or asking again and a "No" isn’t emotional abuse and doesn’t cause emotional damage.

Teach your children what’s safe and unsafe, what’s right and wrong, what’s worthy and not good enough, what’s honorable and dishonorable.  Without your guidance, TV will teach them.

Some people still have scars because of what their parents said and did repeatedly.  And, of course, some have more and deeper scars.  But let’s be clear.  All of us ultimately have the same task: to get over our childhoods and create better lives for ourselves and our children.  Whether the scars were caused by parents, siblings, relatives, neighbors, teachers, school bullies or rotten strangers, the task is the same. How can we do that?  I always look to the people who had it worst: The ones who survived genocidal wars, prison camps, slavery.  How do they look at themselves and the world that they can still laugh and sing and dance and love?  And it’s our job to become like them also.

In addition, we can now resist the mental, emotional, physical and spiritual attacks by spouses, co-workers and bosses.  We can now resist putdowns and bullies; we can now reject their opinions or fight back. We must now train our own memories and fears: The future does not have to be as bad as the past was.  Otherwise we become adult victims to what they did to us when we were children.

Don’t let those ruin the rest of your life.  Grow up.  They might have been in charge of the past, but you’re in charge of the future.

History is not destiny.

"Mr. Negativity" proudly destroys teamwork

Carl loved the title of “Mr. Negative.”  He was proud of being smarter than anyone else and thought his put-downs were funny.  No matter what you said, he would disagree, counter it or top it.  His personal attacks, sarcasm and cutting remarks could bring most people to tears.  He could create a tense, hostile workplace in minutes. He could bring a brainstorming or planning meeting to a halt by finding fault with every suggestion or plan, and proving that nothing would work.  He was convinced that his predictions were accurate and more valuable to the team than the frustration and anger he created.  On his team, sick-leave and turnover were high, while morale, camaraderie and teamwork were low.  Productivity was also low because most people wasted a huge percent of their time talking about Carl’s latest exploits.

What can you do?

In this case, his manager had heard me present “How to Eliminate the High Cost of Low Attitudes” at a conference, and had brought me in as a consultant.  She wanted me to help her create a culture that would be professional, retain high quality staff and be much more productive.

Why did his manager, Jane, bring me in, instead of simply evaluating Carl honestly and having consequences leading to demotion and eventual termination if he didn’t change?  Jane thought that:

• Carl was bright and expert enough in his specialty that she was afraid of losing him.
• If she was a good enough manager and learned to say the magic words, Carl would straighten out.
• Her hands were tied because Carl was a long-term employee in a government organization.

Coaching helped Jane see that she was victimizing the rest of the team by giving in to her fears and helplessness.  Carl was verbally abusive and emotionally intimidating.  And he was subtly manipulative because he had a soft voice and a smile on his face while he sarcastically cut his co-workers to ribbons.  She saw that if she continued to give in to her fear of losing Carl, she’d lose her reputation and position because her team would mutiny or quit.

Despite these insights, Jane remained a conflict-avoidant manager.  She would allow the team to act, but she wouldn’t lead the way.  Therefore we worked around her.

I helped the team create a set of behavioral expectations for individual professional interactions and for team meetings.  It was no surprise that the list did not included any of Carl’s behaviors, that his behaviors were specifically prohibited and that the list of appropriate behaviors contained the opposite ones Carl had been bullying coworkers with.

The rest of the team voted to accept the code of professional behavior.  Carl said he’d sign but he wouldn’t change his behavior.  He’d been Mr. Negativity as long as he could remember and didn’t think he could change.

That seemed like an impasse.  No one wanted to waste a lifetime waiting for Carl to go through therapy, especially since he didn’t want to change anyway.  I helped the team realize that Carl had no reason to change.  There were no adverse consequences to him if he kept doing what he was doing.  The team needed some leverage.

Since the manager wouldn’t act on her own, the rest of the team took a bold step.  They told Carl that they wouldn’t tolerate his hostility and the tension it caused.  They said that they’d remove him immediately from any meeting in which he started his negative putdowns.  He laughed nervously, thinking they’d never really do that.  He still wouldn’t accept that his behavior was so hurtful and despised.

At the next meeting, of course, Carl was negative as usual.  He was shocked when the rest of the team immediately stood up and told him to leave.  He sheepishly did, with a parting shot that they’d never come up with a good plan without him.

He was wrong.  They did develop a good plan to deal with the problem they’d been working on. They also gave him his assignment within it.  They told him that people who weren’t at meetings must be happy with the tasks assigned to them.  Carl was outraged and protested.  He looked for support from anyone on the team, but everyone was against him.  That also stunned him.  They told him that they were following the team’s behavior code.  He could play according to the rules and take what he got or leave.  They also told him that he could be very likeable when he wanted to and they’d be glad to be on a team with the “likeable Carl.”

It took two more meetings at which Carl was asked to leave, before he began to change.  It was amazing to all of them, including Carl, that what he thought was a life-long pattern, changed when enough leverage was applied.  He really did like what he did and he also had wanted to be liked.

This example is over the top in many ways.  But I have a question for you: Did the rest of the team bully Carl or were they right in voting him off their island when he was an abusive bully?

One general lesson here is: “When the legitimate authority won’t act and, therefore, leaves a power vacuum, the most hostile and power-hungry people usually fill it.  Your task is to fill it with the best behavior instead.”

There are many other ways to solve the problems that the Carl’s of the world cause at work and at home.  A stronger manager would have done it by herself.  Jane obviously had problems as a manager and wouldn't step outside her comfort zone to solve them.  Her boss soon took appropriate action.

It’s also a different matter if the negative person is the manager or boss.  There are many other problem behaviors that can be resolved with the Behavioral Code approach.  In other blog posts I’ll cover those bullying situations at work.

Please tell me your story so I can be sure to respond to it.